Received: 30 June 2016 | Revised: 15 September 2016 | Accepted: 23 October 2016

DOI 10.1111/jtxs.12238

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Pasta quality as impacted by the type of flour and starch

and the level of egg addition

Mohammed Saleh1 | Khalid Al-Ismail1 | Radwan Ajo2

1
Department of Nutrition and Food
Technology, The University of Jordan,
Amman, 11942, Jordan
2
Department of Nutrition and Food
Processing, Al-Huson University College,
Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan
Correspondence
Mohammed Saleh, Department of Nutrition
and Food Technology, The University of
Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Email: misaleh@ju.edu.jo
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of substituting wheat flour with fractions of different starch
types and egg levels on pasta quality. First order mixture response surface model was used where
the effects of various starch types and egg levels on pasta quality were evaluated. Coefficients of
estimation were determined and fractional contribution of wheat, starch type and egg levels were
evaluated. Egg levels negatively (p < .05) impacted treatments pasting viscosities, except in potato
starch and rice flour. Stabilized rice bran peak viscosity increased from 215.0 to 3420.0 cP with
decrease in egg level from 33 to 0%. Flow behavior index of treatments solution with various frac-
tions of starch types and egg level ranged from 0.34 to 1.42 and was significantly (p < .05) lower
than control (i.e., 2.15) indicating a better fit as a shear thinning model. Water holding capacity val-
ues of acorn starch and lupine flour were the greatest among treatment ranging from 86.8% to
176.0% and from 83.3% to 152.0%, respectively. Results also showed a possible modification of
cooked pasta quality including firmness, stickiness, cooking loss, and water uptake, keeping with
consumer acceptability through varying starch type and egg level.

Practical applications
Results show that flour and starch type and egg level interaction play significant role in pasta
blends formulation. Moreover, substitution of wheat flour with acorn, native or modified corn and
potato starches fractions, as well as with lupine, rice, tapioca, and stabilized rice bran flours would
have significant effects on the physical properties and acceptability of various cereal products. For
instance, the use of rice bran in potentially developed products would enhance the consumption
of whole grain foods, resulting in improved intake of fiber and other healthy components.

KEYWORDS
egg level, flour type, pasta quality, starch type

1 | INTRODUCTION
Pasta is one of the most commonly consumed cereal products due to
the convenience of preparation, palatability, and nutritional quality. It
contains about 77% carbohydrates and 11–15% proteins (Bashir, Aeri,
& Masoodi, 2012). Firmness of pasta dough and stickiness of cooked
pasta are probably the primary quality parameters of pasta (D’egidio,
Mariani, Nardi, Novaro, & Cubadda, 1990). Hydration of the protein
fraction before starch gelatinization also appears to play a critical role
in constructing the final pasta quality. The ability of proteins to form a
continuous and interconnected protein phase that is able to entrap
This article was published on AA publication on: 27 October 2016.
starch granules can provide the necessary cohesion of pasta. In con-
trast to bread dough, where the native endosperm proteins are usually
fully hydrated forming a gluten polymeric three-dimensional network,
protein network formation is limited in the case of pasta dough (Dexter
& Matsuo, 1978). Proteins are known to provide a support network for
starch granules through the formation of starch–proteins network pro-
viding strength for starch granules (Hamaker, Griffin, & Moldenhauer,
1991).
Several studies have investigated the supplementation of pasta
flour with various legumes. For example, Zhao, Manthey, Chang,
Hou, and Yuan (2005) studied the effect of incorporating green and
yellow peas, lentils, and chickpea flours on the quality characteristics
of spaghetti. The authors reported a general increase in trimness and

J. Texture Stud. 2016; 1–12 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jtxs V

C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1
2 |
color intensity but a decrease in the overall quality of cooked
spaghetti when substituting wheat flour with the legume flours.
Sabanis, Makri, and Doxastakis (2006) also investigated the effect of
5–50% durum flour replacement using untreated chickpeas flour on
the physical properties of lasagna dough. The authors reported
improved physical properties of lasagna dough, but a deterioration of
processing, handling and cooking characteristics with the increased
substitution levels was also reported. Others indicated that functional
properties of pasta dough as well as cooked pasta are affected by
changes in flour chemical composition, protein quality, and water
absorption kinetics during cooking (Debbouz & Doetkott, 1996 and
D’egidio et al., 1990).
Starch substitution can be used to modify the performance of a
given wheat flour for pasta. In this regard, Hen, Chols, and Voragen
(2006) investigated that effect of, substituting part of wheat flour with
fractions of potato and sweet potato starches and their derivatives on
white salted noodles. The authors reported a decrease in cooking loss
and significant increase in softness, stretchability, and slipperiness
when replacing up to 20% wheat by acetylated potato starch or acety-
lated sweet potato starches. Rho, Chung, and Seib (1989) also reported
that addition of 10% modified wheat or waxy maize starches decreased
surface firmness of cooked noodles. The use of navy pinto bean
starches, conversely, was reported to significantly increase hardness of
cooked starchy noodles (Kim, Wiesenborn, Lorenzen, & Berglund,
1996). Payas-Duarte, Mock, and Satterlee (1996) substituted durum
wheat with lupine, light, and dark buckwheat and amaranth flours (i.e.,
at 5, 15, 25, and 30%) and produced multigrain pastas. The authors
indicated that the use of lupine did not affect pasta characteristics;
however, the use of dark buckwheat and amaranth significantly
decreased firmness and increased cooking loss and color values com-
pared to the control durum-flour significantly. Perez and Perez (2009)
reported that the use of 20% of cassava flour in making fettuccines has
no impacts on cooking loss and sensorial color, taste, texture, and
appearance of produced fettuccines. However, the authors reported a
decrease in protein content when replacing 20% of wheat with cassava
flour. Additionally, the use of acorn for human consumption has
increased due to its nutritional value (Ozcan 2007; Ozcan & Gulriz
2005; Rababah et al., 2008).
Durum wheat sometimes lacks some of pasta functional character-
istics including cooked weight loose and firmness due to inconsistent
seasonal variations of wheat quality. Therefore, supplementation of
pasta with starches is of great interest to account for such variations
and keeping pasta functionality without the necessity of using dough
improvers. Lupine flour, for instance, has gained great interest as food
ingredient supplementing different food products due to its protein
(i.e., 40–45%) and fiber (i.e., 25–30%) contents (Abdelrahman, 2014;
Lopez, 2014). The high lysine, low methionine content of lupine
complements that of wheat flour proteins which are poor in lysine and
relatively higher in the sulphur containing amino acids. Lupine flour
was largely used in cakes, pancakes and has been added to spaghetti,
bread as well as gluten free products (Dervas, Doxastakis, Hadjisavva-
Zinoviadi, & Triantafillakos, 1999; Tronc, 1999).
SALEH ET AL.
Limited information are available on the effects of cereal and other
plant starches/flours products including acorn starch, lupine flour, corn
and modified corn starches, potatoes, and tapioca flour on pasta qual-
ity. The use of such products is expected to influence pasta quality.
Therefore, the objective of the current work is to provide detailed
information on the effects of replacing wheat flour with fractions of
various starch/flour on pasta quality characteristics.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Materials
Commercial all-purpose wheat (Al-Arabia Wheat Flour, Co.), Rice flour
and stabilized rice bran (Gulf Rice Milling Co., Inc. Houston, TX), native
corn starch (Alalali, Basamh Marketing Co., Ltd., Saudi Arabia), modified
waxy corn starch (Penford Food Ingredient, Centennial, Co.), tapioca
flour (Monity and Totoco Co., Ltd., Bangkok Thailand), potato starch
(Barry farm, Wapakoneta, OH) lupine flour (Irwin Valley Milling Pty
Ltd., Western, Australia), acorn starch (i.e., locally harvested and
extracted as described below), and whole egg powder (Honeyville
Food Products, Inc., Brigham City, UT) was used in this study.
Acorn starch was produced using sodium hydroxide alkaline solu-
tion according to the method described by Sosulski and McCurdy
(1987) with minor modification of soaking durations. In summary, acorn
flour was defatted by soaking in hexane (1:10 w/v) for 24 hr after
which hexane was drained. Defatted acorn flour was soaked in a 0.02
N sodium hydroxide solution (1:10 ratio w/v) for 2 hr at 25C with con-
tinues stirring. The soaked sample was then wet-milled in an Osterizer
blender for 3 min (i.e., speed setting at 6) and filtered twice though U.
S. standard test sieves number 100 and then 400, respectively. The
slurry was then centrifuged at 4,000 rpm for 30 min at 4C in a 5810R
centrifuge, (Eppendorf, Germany) and the supernatant was discarded.
The sediment was washed five times with 0.02 N sodium hydroxide
(1:10 flour to sodium hydroxide) and the slurry was then centrifuged
again at 4,000 rpm for 30 min. The dark tailings layer atop the starch
sediment was carefully scraped away and discarded. The sediment was
washed three times using distilled water, centrifuged at 4,000 rpm for
30 min and again the dark tailings layer atop the starch was carefully
scraped away and discarded. After washing and centrifugation, the
resulting sediment was suspended in distilled water and adjusted to pH
of 7.0 (pH meter: HANNA Instrument, UK) with 0.1 N hydrochloric
acid (HCl) before a final centrifugation at 4,000 rpm for 30 min. The
resulting starch was then air dried for 48 hr at 40C to a moisture con-
tent of 12% before grinding and passing through a sieve number 100.
2.2 | Design of the experiment
A three factors first order mixture response surface design was used as

(1965) to conduct the study where wheat (x1),
described by Scheffe
starch or flour type (x2), and whole egg powder (x3) were considered as
the main factors (Table 1). The proportions of each factor used in the
model were expressed as a fraction of the mixture and for each
SALEH ET AL.
TA BL E 1 Mixture response surface model of starch/flour type,
wheat, and whole egg powder used in this study
Wheat, starch/flour, and egg fractions
Treatments
X1 (%) X2 (%) X3 (%)
66% X1, 17% X2, 17% X3 66.0 17.0 17.0
50% X1, 50% X2, 0% X3 50.0 50.0 0.0
33% X1, 34% X2, 33% X3 33.0 34.0 33.0
17% X1, 66% X2, 17% X3 17.0 66.0 17.0
0% X1, 50% X2, 50% X3 0.0 50.0 50.0
Note. Fractions represent percentage of a total of 100 g treatment.
X1 5 wheat %; X2 5 Starch or flour %; X3 5 Egg %.
treatment combination, the sum of the component proportions will be
equal to one (Equation 1), where:
Xi 5x1 1x2 1x3 51 (1)
A full factorial combination of the three factors was used in this
study. In this design, the number of points (n) necessary to run a mixture
experiment is: n 5 2q 2 1 where q is equal to the number of components
being studied (3). JMP release 10.0 (SAS institute, Cary, NC) was used to
build up the model parameters. Table 1 also presents the percentages of
each of the three variables (i.e., wheat, starch or flour type and egg level)
used in the model. Fractions represent percentage of a total of 100 g of
starch/flour type, wheat, and egg powder used in each treatment. Con-
trol sample (i.e., 100% wheat) was included in the study.
2.3 | Pasting measurement
Pasting profile and viscosities (i.e., peak, trough, setback, breakdown,
and final) and pasting temperature of treatments were assessed and
recorded with a Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA-4 Rapid Visco Analyzer,
Foss North America, Eden-Prairie, MN) according to the AACCI
approved method 76-21 (AACC, 2000). Approximately 3 g of each
treatment was mixed with 25 ml of distilled water. The slurry was then
mixed at 50C for 1 min at 160 rpm before being heated from 50 to
95C at a heating rate of 12C/min. The hot paste was then held at 95C
for 2.5 min and then cooled down to 50C at a cooling rate of 12C/min.
Data obtained from the RVA were processed by Thermocline version
1.2 software (Newport Scientific Inc., Warriewood, Australia). All sam-
ples were measured in triplicate.
2.4 | Rheological measurements
A mixture of 5.0 g of each treatment and 95 ml distilled water was pre-
pared for rheological property measurements. Homogenization of
treatments was performed using a homogenizer (3120, Igenieurbuero
CAT, Stufen, Germany) before rheological property measurements.
Treatments were held at the room temperature (23.2C) for 1 hr before
rheological measurement. Apparent viscosity of treatments was meas-
ured during shear rate of 6–60/s at 23.2C. A rotational viscometer
(SNB-AI Digital Viscometer, Shandong, China) was used for viscosity
| 3
measurements where samples were kept constant in a holding cup dur-
ing the entire rheological measurement duration. Flow behaviors of
treatment described in terms of consistency coefficient and flow
behavior index was evaluated in this study using Herschel–Bulkley
model (Equation 2) and was used to describe the experimental data for
flow curves of all samples
s5so 1m gn_ (2)
where s is shear stress (mPa), so is yield stress (mPa), m is the consis-
tency coefficient (mPa
sn), c_ is shear rate (s21), and n is the flow behav-
ior index (dimensionless). Herschel–Bulkley model was used to
describe the rheological behavior of treatments functional properties.
Flow behavior index (n) is typically used to characterize fluid and semi-
fluid behavior with n value of (1) describing a Newtonian fluid, n value
of less than (1) describing a shear thinning, and n value of greater than
(1) describing a shear thickening fluid behavior.
2.5 | Water holding capacity
Water holding capacity (%) of each treatment was determined by the
method described by Abu-Salem and Abou-Arab (2011) with modifying
the centrifuge speed and the holding temperatures. In summary, flour
treatments were dispersed in distilled water and the dispersions was
allowed to stand for 1 hr at 25, 35, 45, and 55C before centrifuging
(Eppendorf, 5810R, Hamburg, Germany) at 3800 RPM for 30 min at
4C. Sediment weights were recorded and used to calculate water hold-
ing capacity [WHC (%)] as the following equation.
WHC ð%Þ 5 ðWeight of sediment=weight of dry solidsÞ  100%
(3)
2.6 | Pasta making and cooked pasta quality
Prepared flour treatments (wheat, various starch/flour ratio, and egg
level) were mixed with 30% by weight water containing 2% salt. Treat-
ments were mixed thoroughly using a household kitchen Aid mixer
(Model KSM150PSER) at speed of 4 for 5 min to distribute water uni-
formly throughout the flour particles. The produced pasta dough was
then placed in pasta making machine fitted with an adjustable sheet
thickness cutter.
Pasta was cooked in excess boiling water with 1 teaspoon of salt
and 1 tablespoon of olive oil for 6 min (i.e., optimum cooking time as
determined according to AACC method 66-50.01, 2000). Immediately
after cooking, pasta was drained into a sieve, transferred to a bowl, and
cooled to room temperature (23.2C) before quality measurements. All
subsequent analyses on cooked pasta were made on pasta cooked at
the optimum cooking time 61 min.
2.7 | Water uptake of cooked pasta
Moisture content of pasta was measured before and after cooking
and cooked moisture uptake was calculated using the following
equation:
4 |
 
water content ðcooked pastaÞ
Water uptake ð% dbÞ 5 21 3 100
water content ðdry pastaÞ
(4)
2.8 | Cooking loss of pasta during cooking
The loss of dry matter of pasta after cooking was determined by a
two-stage drying procedure. Cooking loss was calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:
 
dry matter ðcooked pastaÞ
Cooking loss ð% dbÞ 5 21 3 100 (5)
dry matter ðdry pastaÞ
2.9 | Cooked pasta texture
Texture measurements were evaluated using a texture analyzer (Mec-
mesin Ltd., West Sussex, RH1306Z, UK). A single compression test
measurements of cooked pasta was performed using a 35 mm cylindri-
cal probe compressing a single dough ring strand at a constant defor-
mation rate of (1 mm/s) to 80% of the initial strand thickness.
Hardness (i.e., the maximal peak force attained during the first com-
pression) and stickiness (i.e., the negative area under the first compres-
sion curve) were recorded.
2.10 | Sensory attributes for cooked pasta
Sensory attributes of cooked pasta were assessed in a sensory evalua-
tion laboratory, Department of Nutrition and Food Technology, Faculty
of Agriculture, The University of Jordan. A total of 50 consumers were
recruited to perform the consumer evaluation testing. For the con-
sumer testing, each consumer was assigned a log number, given a brief
explanation of the test objectives and seated at a separate testing
booth. Randomized samples across treatment were served at 25C in
Styrofoam food cups and identified by a three-digit code and consum-
ers were instructed to complete their evaluations. Samples were pre-
sented one at a time to each of the consumers. Unsalted crackers and
water were provided for panelists to rinse their palates between sam-
ples. Consumers evaluated each sample in duplicate on separate testing
days. A ballot consisting of five questions was designed to evaluate
consumers’ acceptance of various aspects of the sample to be tested.
A 9-point hedonic scale according to Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr (1999)
was used. Consumers were asked to express their overall acceptance
of the product and their acceptance and texture. Consumers were also
asked to intensify the overall product firmness, stickiness, flavor, and
color of each sample using the 9-point hedonic scale.
2.11 | Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on physical treatments
data using JMP release 10.0 (SAS institute, Cary, NC). Least significant
differences (LSD), at a 5% level of probability, were determined
between treatments. A first order mixture response surface model was
fitted using three factors starch/flour type, wheat, and whole egg pow-
der as the model factors. The model search was started with the special
cubic equation (Equation 6):
SALEH ET AL.
Y5b1 x1 1b2 x2 1b3 x3 1b12 x1 x2 1b13 x1 x3 1b23 x2 x3 (6)
where Y is the predicted response, b’s are the parameter estimates for
each linear and cross product term for the prediction model, x1, x2, x3,
x1x2, x1x3, and x2x3 are the linear terms of the factors used and the
cross product terms, respectively. The model chosen was based on its
significance (p < .05), the insignificance of the lack of fit and the highest
R2 according to Cornell (1986).
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2 presents the effect of starch/flour type and egg level on the
pasting properties of wheat flour treatments. Stabilized rice bran had
the lowest (p < .05) peak viscosity of 72.5 cP compared to 6767.5 cP
for waxy corn starch. Regardless to the egg level used, the increase in
wheat proportions in treatments resulted in an increase in peak viscos-
ity of stabilized rice bran treatments and in a decrease in waxy corn
starch peak viscosity. For instance, the increase in wheat contribution
from 17 to 34, 50, and 66% resulted in an increase in peak viscosity of
stabilized rice bran treatment from 72.5 to 215.0, 3420.0, and 1484.0
cP, respectively. A similar trend was reported for lupine treatments.
Conversely, peak viscosity of waxy corn starch treatment decreased
from 6767.5 to 2279.5 cP as the wheat proportion increased from
17% to 66%, respectively. Similarly, peak viscosity of acorn starch
treatments increased from 549.5 cP to 691.5, 3713.0, and 1115.0 cP
with the increase in wheat proportion from 17 to 34, 50 and 66%,
respectively.
Results also indicated a significant contribution of egg level in
affecting treatments peak viscosity. For example, peak viscosity of sta-
bilized rice bran treatment decreased from 3420.0 to 215.0 cP as the
egg level in samples increased from 0% to 33%. Native corn and acorn
starch and tapioca flour treatments showed similar trends with peak
viscosity decreased from 4921.0 to 1513.0 cP for corn and from
3713.0 to 691.5 cP for acorn and from 3423.5 to 1940.0 cP for tapioca
flour with the increase in egg level from 0% to 33%, respectively. Rice
flour, on the other hand, showed a decrease in peak viscosity from
1350.0 cP to 548.5 with the decrease in egg level from 33% to 0% in
treatments. Similar trends were reported for trough, breakdown, final,
and setback viscosities of starch/flour types and egg levels. A 100%
wheat flour control had pasting viscosities of peak, trough, breakdown,
final, and setback viscosities of 1873.2, 1520.3, 352.9, 1950.5, and
430.2, respectively.
These results demonstrated that pasting properties of wheat are
greatly affected by the starch/flour composition (i.e., protein and fiber
types and contents). Sliwinski, Kolster, Prins, and Van Vliet (2004) and
Chiang, Chen, and Chang (2006) demonstrated that greater protein
resulted in higher extensibility, greater bread loaf volume height and
expansion. This was further supported by the fact that the greater pro-
tein content of treatments due to the increased lupine flour, for exam-
ple, resulted in low pasting properties. Starch was long reported to play
the principal role in pasting formation. Proteins and lipids were also
reported to promote the formation of a protective insoluble polymeric
matrix conferring rigidity to the starch granules and also provide
SALEH ET AL. | 5

TA BL E 2 Pasting viscosities [peak, trough, breakdown, final, and setback (cp)] and pasting temperature [Pasting T. (C)] of wheat flour [17, 34,
50, and 66%] substituted with fractions [66, 33, 50, and 17%] of starch/flour types and egg levels

Starch/Flour type Peak Trough Breakdown Final Setback Pasting T.

Wheat 5 17%, Starch type 5 66% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch 549.5f 535.0f 14.5f 956.0e 416.0e 81.3c
Native Corn Starch 2,700.5d 1,481.0d 1,219.5d 2,998.5c 1,517.5c 74.3d
Lupine Flour 214.5g 160.0g 54.5e 284.5f 124.5f 84.4b
Potato Starch 6,321.5b 2,230.5a 4,091.0b 3,266.5c 1,036.0d 65.3f
Stabilized Rice Bran 72.5h 60.5h 12.0f 175.5g 115.0f 95.0a
Rice Flour 1,766.0e 1,661.5c 54.5e 3,575.5b 1,864.0b 81.6c
Tapioca Flour 3,816.0c 1,263.5e 2,552.5c 2,409.5d 1,146.0d 71.4e
Waxy Corn Starch 6,767.5a 1,986.0b 4,781.5a 4,679.5a 2,693.5a 66.3f

Wheat 5 34%, Starch type 5 33% Egg 5 33%

Acorn Starch 691.5f 646.5e 45.0f 1,196.5e 550.0f 81.8b
Native Corn Starch 1,513.0d 1,214.0c 299.0d 2,327.5c 1,113.5c 77.1c
Lupine Flour 559.0g 508.5f 50.5f 826.0f 317.5g 81.2b
Potato Starch 2,611.5b 1,386.0b 1,225.5b 2,330.0c 944.0d 67.0e
Stabilized Rice Bran 215.0h 183.5g 31.5g 551.5g 368.0g 94.9a
Rice Flour 1,350.0e 1,226.5c 123.5e 2,840.5b 1,614.0b 81.9b
Tapioca Flour 1,940.0c 1,099.0d 841.0c 1,762.0d 663.0e 73.5d
Waxy Corn Starch 3,613.0a 1,921.5a 1,716.5a 5,051.0a 3,129.5a 67.0e

Wheat 5 50%, Starch type 5 50% Egg50%

Acorn Starch 3,713.0c 1,559.0c 2,154.0b 2,802.5d 1,243.5c 71.8f
Native Corn Starch 4,921.0a 2,033.5a 2,887.5a 3,241.5cd 1,208.0c 66.2g
Lupine Flour 1,550.5e 997.0d 553.5e 1,882.0e 885.0d 77.9d
Potato Starch 543.0f 408.5e 134.5g 948.0f 539.5e 87.3a
Stabilized Rice Bran 3,420.0d 1,864.0ab 1,556.0d 3,688.5ab 1,824.5b 80.3c
Rice Flour 548.5f 340.0e 208.5f 650.0f 310.0e 84.3b
Tapioca Flour 3,423.5d 1,679.0bc 1,744.5c 3,503.0bc 1,824.0b 73.4e
Waxy Corn Starch 4,048.0b 1,873.5ab 2,174.5b 4,004.5a 2,131.0a 66.2g

Wheat 5 66%, Starch type 5 17% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch 1,115.0h 885.5f 229.5f 1,870.5f 985.0d 78.7ab
Native Corn Starch 2,441.5c 1,283.0b 1,163.5b 2,770.0b 1,492.0b 74.2c
Lupine Flour 1,839.0f 972.0e 867.0d 2,087.5e 1,115.5c 77.8b
Potato Starch 2,550.5b 1,343.0a 1,207.5b 2,459.0c 1,116.0c 67.4d
Stabilized Rice Bran 1,484.0g 736.5g 747.5e 1,444.5g 708.0e 79.1ab
Rice Flour 2,814.0a 1,349.5a 1,464.5a 3,383.0a 2,033.5a 67.4d
Tapioca Flour 1,995.0e 1,245.5c 749.5e 2,744.5b 1,499.0b 79.9a
Waxy Corn Starch 2,279.5d 1,202.5d 1,077.0c 2,296.5d 1,094.0c 5.1b

Note. For the same wheat fraction used, pasting viscosity [peak, trough, breakdown, final and setback (cp)] and pasting temperature (8C) for treatments
within the same set (i.e., same column) having different letter(s) are significantly (p < .05) different according to the LSD.

protection to the starch granules integrity (Saleh & Meullenet 2013).
Fractional replacement of various starch/flour types and egg level
apparently influenced protein–starch interaction during pasting, which
may show that protein and lipid molecules promoted the formation of
insoluble polymeric matrix conferring rigidity to the starch granules and
also providing protection to starch granule integrity (Grinberg & Tolsto-
guzov 1997). Marshal, Goynes, and Normand (1990) also indicated that
the structure of proteins play a key role in affecting cereals functional
properties. The decrease in pasting properties was attributed to the
lack of protein’s ability to form appropriate bonding necessary for pro-
tecting swollen starch granules integrity from rupture as well as the
decrease in contribution of total starch available for swelling (Saleh &
Meullenet 2007).
Table 3 presents flow behavior index, consistency coefficient, and
water holding capacity of various treatments. Wheat flour had flow
behavior index and consistency coefficient values of 1.207 and 5.00,
respectively, that are greater than that of treatments containing various
proportions of starch or flour and egg levels. Flow behavior index (n)
for treatments [except acorn starch (66%), wheat (17%) and egg (17%)]
were less than 1 indicating best fit of batter dough using Herschel–
Bulkley Model. Since batter behavior acquired a yield stress, having a
flow behavior index of close to 1; data was fitted with Herschel–Bulk-
ley Model. The flow behavior index of treatments ranged from 0.35 to
1.42 irrespective of wheat–starch–egg variation. ANOVA analyses indi-
cated significant differences in flow behavior index and in consistency
coefficient across treatments. Acron flow behavior index and consis-
tency coefficient varied with the egg and wheat starch contribution in
each treatment. Previous study on the effect of hydrocolloids on the
physical properties of acorn starch by Saleh, Ajo, Al-Ismail, and Ondier
(2016) suggested that acorn starch viscoelastic behavior is influenced
by the variation in treatments chemical composition and water avail-
ability. The authors further indicated that the magnitude of change in
flow behavior index and consistency coefficient for acorn starch is a
function of acorn starch–hydrocolloids interaction.
6 | SALEH ET AL.

TA BL E 3 Flow behavior index (n), consistency coefficient (m), and water holding capacity (WHC) of wheat flour [17, 34, 50, and 66%] substi-
tuted with fractions [66, 33, 50, and 17%] of starch/flour types and egg levels

Flow behavior Consistency Water holding

Starch/Flour type index (n) coefficient (m) capacity (WHC)

Wheat 517%, Starch type 5 66% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch 1.42 6 0.019a 0.46 6 0.004d 176.0 6 1.36a
Native Corn Starch 0.94 6 0.006b 0.44 6 0.049d 80.2 6 1.33e
Lupine Flour 0.34 6 0.003g 0.85 6 0.002b 152.0 6 1.44b
Potato Starch 0.72 6 0.025c 0.48 6 0.015cd 87.5 6 1.38d
Stabilized Rice Bran 0.43 6 0.007f 0.98 6 0.013a 107.6 6 0.56c
Rice Flour 0.65 6 0.019d 0.96 6 0.034a 89.7 6 0.44d
Tapioca Flour 0.97 6 0.005b 0.53 6 0.004c 81.5 6 1.53e
Waxy Corn Starch 0.59 6 0.015e 0.49 6 0.017cd 80.4 6 2.78e

Wheat 5 34%, Starch type 5 33% Egg 5 33%

Acorn Starch 0.85 6 0.005c 0.89 6 0.006ef 141.9 6 0.57a
Native Corn Starch 0.93 6 0.023cd 1.08 6 0.011c 76.0 6 1.36d
Lupine Flour 0.94 6 0.005cd 0.97 6 0.024d 121.2 6 1.13b
Potato Starch 1.09 6 0.033ab 0.87 6 0.021f 64.4 6 0.50e
Stabilized Rice Bran 1.00 6 0.160abc 1.22 6 0.011b 81.4 6 0.87c
Rice Flour 0.99 6 0.008bc 0.98 6 0.003d 77.6 6 1.54d
Tapioca Flour 1.13 6 0.013a 0.94 6 0.016de 62.7 6 0.10e
Waxy Corn Starch 1.02 6 0.032abc 2.36 6 0.049a 64.7 6 0.98e

Wheat 5 50%, Starch type 5 50% Egg 5 0%

Acorn Starch 0.80 6 0.008d 0.98 6 0.014a 149.5 6 2.11a
Native Corn Starch 0.98 6 0.025a 1.02 6 0.029a 79.2 6 0.01f
Lupine Flour 0.84 6 0.030c 0.97 6 0.030a 136.3 6 1.77b
Potato Starch 0.38 6 0.006g 0.91 6 0.181a 85.5 6 2.07e
Stabilized Rice Bran 0.42 6 0.013f 0.98 6 0.039a 108.7 6 2.07c
Rice Flour 0.98 6 0.001a 0.86 6 0.000a 95.1 6 1.50d
Tapioca Flour 0.59 6 0.007e 1.05 6 0.382a 74.5 6 4.00g
Waxy Corn Starch 0.93 6 0.010b 1.16 6 0.003a 85.3 6 0.71e

Wheat5 66%, Starch type5 17% Egg517%

Acorn Starch 0.98 6 0.000c 1.07 6 0.070a 86.8 6 0.57a
Native Corn Starch 0.98 6 0.003c 1.07 6 0.071a 75.6 6 0.71ab
Lupine Flour 0.44 6 0.005d 0.36 6 0.009d 83.3 6 0.82a
Potato Starch 1.00 6 0.009c 1.06 6 0.045a 64.7 6 0.92b
Stabilized Rice Bran 1.22 6 0.007a 0.50 6 0.015c 86.7 6 1.48a
Rice Flour 0.35 6 0.013e 0.97 6 0.034a 68.6 6 0.87b
Tapioca Flour 1.01 6 0.014c 0.74 6 0.008b 75.8 6 0.22ab
Waxy Corn Starch 1.05 6 0.050b 0.65 6 0.031b 68.8 6 0.57b

Note. Flow behavior index (n), consistency coefficient (m), and water holding capacity (%) 6 standard deviation within the same treatment (i.e., same col-
umn) having different letter(s) are significantly (p < .05) different according to the LSD. Wheat flour (100%) had a WHC of 66.8%.

Response surface model coefficients were calculated and pre-
sented in Table 4 to further illustrate the effects of starch type and egg
level on the rheological properties of treatments. Flow behavior indices
of wheat/starch type interactions and wheat/egg level ranged from
1.18 to 8.49 and 2.23 to 10.80, respectively. Similarly, consistency
coefficient of wheat/starch and wheat/egg interactions ranged from
1.92 to 21.22 for wheat/starch and 3.08 to 15.94 for wheat/egg inter-
actions. The shear-thinning behavior of treatments were attributed to
structural interactions of wheat/starch and wheat/egg as well as to the
changes in composition of batter where the greater starch and egg sub-
stituted wheat flour significantly affected batter rheological properties.
The results of this study correspond to those from Xue and Ngadi
(2006) who reports that changes in viscoelastic properties of gluten are
affected by the structural properties of the gliadin and glutenin subfrac-
tions and the interactions between them and other components
namely lipids and starch. Similarly, Marco and Rosell (2008) showed
that changes in viscoelastic properties of batter as a result of increasing
water absorption, produced by the addition of protein isolate. Gluten
fractions were also reported to be responsible for differences in net-
work matrix formation of noodle resulting in internal firmness (Oh,
Seib, Ward, & Deyoe, 1985). Free fatty acids and their esters were also
reported to interact with starch resulting in changed noodles quality
(Mohri, 1980).
Furthermore, Ashwini, Jyotsns, and Indrani (2009) reported that
egg proteins play a key role in the formation of batter rheological
behavior of food materials. The authors indicated that as a result of
heating; egg yolk coagulation usually determines the final product tex-
ture. Egg white was also reported to affect products gelling, foaming,
and emulsifying characteristics that controls batter structural formation
(Sozer, 2009).
SALEH ET AL. | 7

TA BL E 4 Coefficient of estimates of flow behavior index (n), consistency coefficient (m), water holding capacity, cooked pasta water uptake,
and cooking loss of wheat flour substituted with fractions of starch/flour types and egg levels

Starch/Flour type AS NCS LF PS SRB RF TF WCS

Flow behavior index (n)

Wheat 0.42 0.18 21.57 20.27 0.70 21.97 20.36 0.12
Starch Type 3.00 1.20 20.99 0.87 0.29 20.31 1.41 0.10
Egg Level 22.99 21.18 0.99 20.85 20.27 0.32 21.38 20.07
Wheat*Starch 3.62 1.18 8.47 3.32 7.27 8.49 5.28 3.28
Wheat*Egg 9.87 6.48 4.62 8.17 7.06 2.23 10.8 5.37

Consistency coefficient (m)

Wheat 0.57 20.03 21.90 0.60 22.24 20.03 20.60 25.34
Starch Type 20.14 20.56 0.37 0.03 0.47 1.29 20.34 22.96
Egg Level 0.15 0.58 20.36 20.01 20.45 21.27 0.36 2.98
Wheat*Starch 3.05 5.28 6.95 2.38 7.46 1.92 6.10 21.22
Wheat*Egg 3.08 4.38 7.45 3.45 8.08 7.89 4.03 15.94

Water holding capacity (%)

Wheat 26.8 107.8 2.6 52.4 116.2 53.5 104.7 64.1
Starch Type 36.5 50.7 170.2 86.8 133.8 88.5 118.9 99.0
Egg Level 294.7 68.4 72.0 16.2 65.3 75.0 8.5 3.3
Wheat*Starch 538.6 0.0 199.4 163.5 264.9 96.5 2149.2 125.2
Wheat*Egg 2227.4 0.0 160.5 148.5 2147.2 247.6 160.4 166.6

Cooked pasta water uptake (%)

Wheat 48.3 53.5 70.1 73.3 66.7 66.6 61.5 84.1
Starch Type 194.4 24.8 55.8 60.0 114.7 53.4 79.6 124.6
Egg Level 0.0 160.0 14.0 16.2 6.9 47.1 242.7 32.6
Wheat*Starch 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.5 0.0 45.4 0.0 2131.5
Wheat*Egg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cooking loss (%)

Wheat 0.85 1.53 3.18 2.11 2.80 2.21 1.85 3.04
Starch Type 16.70 6.33 8.62 9.50 10.80 12.00 6.05 0.79
Egg Level 0.00 28.13 23.68 4.60 23.50 23.35 22.65 20.03
Wheat*Starch 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.98 0.00 9.94
Wheat*Egg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AS 5 acorn starch; NCS 5 native corn starch; LF 5 lupine flour; PS 5 potato starch; SRB 5 stabilized rice bran; RF 5 rice flour; TF 5 tapioca flour;
WCS 5 waxy corn starch.

Table 3 also presents the WHC of wheat substituted with fractions

of starch/flour types and egg levels. Acorn starch (66%), wheat (17%),
and egg level (17%) treatment had the greatest (176%) WHC and tapi-
oca flour (33%), wheat (34%), and egg (33) sample had the lowest (i.e.,
62.7) WHC. WHC for 100% wheat (i.e., 66.8% not shown) was not
included in Table 3. Results indicated an increase in WHC with the
increase in starch/flour contribution in treatments, Figure 1, with some
exceptions. Lupine flour treatments showed a greater water holding
capacity (i.e., 152.0, 121.2, 136.3, and 83.3%) with the decrease in flour
percentage in each treatment and irrespective of egg level used. The
increased WHC of lupine flour was attributed to lupine protein (i.e.,
37.6–52.6%) and fiber (16.2%) contents (Kohajdova, Karovicova, &
Schmidt, 2011).
Results further supported a significant three model theory (i.e.,
starch–protein–lipid) interaction in the formation of WHC. This was F I G U R E 1 Effect of starch/flour types [AS 5 acorn starch;
LF 5 lupine flour; SRB 5 stabilized rice bran; RF 5 rice flour;
clearly demonstrated in Table 4 where wheat/starch and wheat egg
PS 5 potato starch; WCS 5 waxy corn starch; NCS 5 native corn
interaction showed greater coefficient of estimation than wheat,
starch; and TF 5 tapioca flour] percentage [17, 33, 50, and 66%] on
starch, or egg contribution alone. The increase in lipid content in treat- the changes in water holding capacity of wheat flour treatment
ments (i.e., with the increase in egg level in treatments) played a role in irrespective to egg level used
8 | SALEH ET AL.

TA BL E 5 Firmness, stickiness, water uptake, and cooking loss of cooked pasta made using various fractions of wheat and starch/flour types
and egg levels

Starch/Flour type Firmness (N) Stickiness (N.s) Water uptake (%) Cooking loss (%)

Wheat 5 17%, Starch type 5 66% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch 76.4 6 0.94f 44.7 6 1.25f 78.5 6 0.31b 3.2 6 0.15b
Native Corn Starch 197.0 6 2.74d 125.8 6 4.46d 66.5 6 0.25c 3.1 6 0.09b
Lupine Flour 258.7 6 1.04a 176.2 6 2.18a 42.6 6 0.05e 3.0 6 0.20b
Potato Starch 51.9 6 1.62h 46.2 6 1.83f 66.8 6 0.16c 2.8 6 0.13b
Stabilized Rice Bran 199.7 6 1.42c 131.2 6 2.32c 59.5 6 0.11d 4.2 6 0.19a
Rice Flour 219.5 6 3.17b 136.5 6 2.54b 59.7 6 0.13d 3.0 6 0.18b
Tapioca Flour 108.1 6 1.09e 84.4 6 0.78e 30.2 6 0.51f 1.6 6 0.28c
Waxy Corn Starch 57.0 6 1.32g 44.3 6 1.44f 87.3 6 0.69a 2.2 6 0.76bc

Wheat 5 34%, Starch type 5 33% Egg 5 33%

Acorn Starch 264.7 6 2.63c 187.7 6 2.28b 80.5 6 1.99a 5.8 6 0.29a
Native Corn Starch 273.5 6 1.62b 224.1 6 1.69a 69.6 6 1.61b 5.9 6 3.43a
Lupine Flour 279.1 6 2.15a 188.5 6 2.52b 46.9 6 0.96e 3.7 6 0.02ab
Potato Starch 166.4 6 0.70f 102.6 6 2.77f 62.0 6 0.75d 3.4 6 0.67ab
Stabilized Rice Bran 255.9 6 1.90d 124.9 6 2.77e 62.8 6 0.25cd 4.4 6 0.20ab
Rice Flour 253.2 6 1.77e 161.7 6 2.02c 60.9 6 0.77d 3.3 6 0.002a
Tapioca Flour 146.1 6 2.24h 224.1 6 2.23a 33.1 6 1.40f 1.9 6 0.36b
Waxy Corn Starch 157.3 6 2.12g 142.3 6 1.07d 65.7 6 1.24c 2.4 6 0.58b

Wheat 5 50%, Starch type 5 50% Egg 5 0%

Acorn Starch 38.1 6 1.44d 29.5 6 0.28d ND ND
Native Corn Starch 37.2 6 1.05d 37.0 6 1.08c 24.3 6 0.64e 2.4 6 0.08d
Lupine Flour 76.7 6 0.94b 52.7 6 2.70b 63.0 6 1.19d 5.9 6 0.57ab
Potato Starch 17.0 6 0.29f 18.3 6 0.56e 93.3 6 0.18a 3.3 6 0.47cd
Stabilized Rice Bran 105.9 6 3.02a 59.6 6 0.92a 90.7 6 1.30b 6.8 6 0.98a
Rice Flour 54.0 6 1.08c 38.1 6 1.93c 71.4 6 1.00c 3.9 6 0.15cd
Tapioca Flour 19.5 6 0.93 e 12.0 6 1.06f 70.5 6 0.49c 2.4 6 0.33d
Waxy Corn Starch 16.1 6 0.13f 12.4 6 0.67f 71.4 6 0.09c 4.4 6 1.09bc

Wheat 5 66%, Starch type 5 17% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch 153.2 6 1.70e 62.2 6 0.47h 64.9 6 0.73c 3.4 6 0.167a
Native Corn Starch 223.4 6 2.34a 157.7 6 0.83a 61.8 6 1.00d 2.3 6 0.176b
Lupine Flour 184.9 6 0.45c 151.2 6 1.01b 58.1 6 1.28e 3.4 6 0.40a
Potato Starch 171.0 6 3.40d 134.4 6 2.43c 73.2 6 0.39a 3.1 6 0.18a
Stabilized Rice Bran 206.5 6 3.80b 98.3 6 1.90e 64.7 6 1.70c 3.6 6 0.32a
Rice Flour 109.0 6 3.76g 75.6 6 1.66g 66.1 6 1.03bc 3.2 6 0.26a
Tapioca Flour 169.1 6 1.68d 126.0 6 2.39d 46.8 6 1.07f 1.9 6 0.36b
Waxy Corn Starch 117.9 6 1.07f 92.7 6 1.72f 67.5 6 0.45b 3.2 6 0.10a

Note. Firmness (N), stickiness (N.s), water uptake (%), and cooked pasta loss (%) 6 standard deviation for treatments within the same set (i.e., same col-
umn) having different letter(s) are significantly (p < .05) different according to the LSD. ND 5 Not determined.

changing WHC of treatments with coefficients of estimation ranging
from 2164.9 to 538.6. Protein–starch interaction manifested by
wheat–starch interaction showed a positive contribution of WHC for
acorn starch, lupine flour, potato starch, rice flour, and waxy corn
starch and a negative effect for stabilized rice bran and tapioca flour.
Conversely, wheat–egg interaction negatively affected WHC of acorn
starch, stabilized rice bran, and rice flour treatments (Table 4). Our
results are in agreement with Dzudie, Scher, and Hardy (2002) who
reported an increase in WHC of food products including meats as a
result of adding fiber.
Table 5 presents cooked pasta quality characteristics including
water uptake, cooking loss, and instrumental textural attributes (i.e.,
firmness and stickiness). For the same wheat, starch/flour, and egg
level, except when 0 egg level used, lupine flour samples had the great-
est cooked pasta firmness having values ranging from 184.9 to 279.1
N whereas waxy corn starch produced the softest firmness value of
57.0 N. Results further indicated that eggs significantly affected cooked
pasta firmness. For instance, the increase of egg from 0 to 17 and
33%; resulted in increasing waxy corn starch firmness from 16.1, to
57.0 and 157.3 N, respectively. Similarly, acorn samples firmness
increased from 38.1 to 76.4 and 264.7 N, respectively. Cooked pasta
stickiness showed similar trends; a result in consistent with the signifi-
cant correlations between firmness and stickiness of cooked pasta
products.
Results confirm that the formation of starch–protein–lipids net-
works in a food system provide mechanical support for the mixture
and protect the formed structure against rupture (Derycke et al.,
2005); these networks in turn are responsible for the rigid nature of
cooked pasta. Our results are also in accordance with Fitzgerald, Mar-
tin, Ward, Park, and Shead (2003) report that protein disruption of rice
proteins by protease treatment decreased the formation of a protein
network. It thus weakened the strength of the starch granules allowing
SALEH ET AL. | 9

TA BL E 6 Sensory attributes of cooked pasta made using wheat flour [17, 34, 50, and 66%] substituted with fractions [66, 33, 50, and 17%]
of starch/flour types and egg levels

Starch/Flour type Overall liking Firmness Stickiness Flavor Color

Wheat 5 17%, Starch type 5 66% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch ND ND ND ND ND
Native Corn Starch ND ND ND ND ND
Lupine Flour ND ND ND ND ND
Potato Starch 6.0 6 0.05b 7.4 6 0.22b 7.0 6 0.15a 6.3 6 0.13a 8.3 6 0.33a
Stabilized Rice Bran ND ND ND ND ND
Rice Flour 7.0 6 0.27a 8.3 6 0.03a 7.2 6 0.08a 4.5 6 0.05b 8.5 6 0.20a
Tapioca Flour ND ND ND ND ND
Waxy Corn Starch 7.1 6 0.12a 8.2 6 0.24a 6.2 6 0.24b 6.3 6 0.08a 8.5 6 0.04a

Wheat 5 34%, Starch type 5 33% Egg 5 33%

Acorn Starch 6.5 6 0.10bc 7.4 6 0.14ab 7.0 6 0.19b 6.4 6 0.19 b 7.4 6 0.05b
Native Corn Starch 5.0 6 0.19d 5.0 6 0.19c 7.1 6 0.20b 5.3 6 0.25c 5.9 6 0.9e
Lupine Flour 7.3 6 0.12a 7.3 6 0.05ab 7.8 6 0.04a 7.9 6 0.21a 8.3 6 0.12a
Potato Starch 6.5 6 0.05bc 5.7 6 0.19c 6.5 6 0.09c 5.2 6 0.24cd 6.8 6 0.24c
Stabilized Rice Bran 6.7 6 0.21b 7.7 6 0.28a 8.0 6 0.01a 6.3 6 0.04b 6.4 6 0.12d
Rice Flour 6.4 6 0.25bc 6.5 6 0.25b 4.0 6 0.08d 6.4 6 0.15b 8.2 6 0.20a
Tapioca Flour 4.4 6 0.15e 5.4 6 0.07c 6.9 6 0.11b 4.5 6 0.05d 5.1 6 0.12f
Waxy Corn Starch 6.3 6 0.03c 6.6 6 0.81b 7.1 6 0.10b 5.4 6 0.61c 6.5 6 0.21cd

Wheat 5 50%, Starch type 5 50% Egg 5 0%

Acorn Starch 6.1 6 0.25bc 6.0 6 0.15d 6.4 6 0.11cd 8.1 6 0.12ab 7.1 6 0.30b
Native Corn Starch 6.9 6 0.08a 8.4 6 0.20a 7.5 6 0.24bc 7.3 6 0.19b 7.9 6 0.16a
Lupine Flour 6.0 6 0.17bc 5.8 6 0.19d 8.4 6 0.12ab 6.3 6 0.14c 7.1 6 0.25b
Potato Starch 7.1 6 0.24a 6.7 6 0.28c 6.5 6 0.19cd 8.0 6 0.24a 6.8 6 0.26bc
Stabilized Rice Bran 6.5 6 0.39ab 8.4 6 0.14a 7.1 6 0.14c 7.9 6 0.09a 6.0 6 0.32e
Rice Flour 7.4 6 0.07a 8.3 6 0.03a 8.2 6 0.14a 7.6 6 0.37ab 6.5 6 0.27cd
Tapioca Flour 5.8 6 0.14bc 7.2 6 0.14b 6.7 6 0.25cd 7.9 6 0.20ab 5.9 6 0.10e
Waxy Corn Starch 5.3 6 0.84c 6.2 6 0.24d 5.7 6 1.16 d 5.4 6 0.39d 6.1 6 0.10 de

Wheat 5 66%, Starch type 5 17% Egg 5 17%

Acorn Starch 7.6 6 0.33ab 7.1 6 0.19cde 7.5 6 0.28bc 7.6 6 0.05c 7.3 6 0.28bcd
Native Corn Starch 5.6 6 0.20e 6.3 6 0.03f 7.4 6 0.15c 5.7 6 0.08f 6.5 6 0.27cde
Lupine Flour 7.7 6 0.28a 8.8 6 0.35a 8.5 6 0.17a 8.6 6 0.09a 8.5 6 1.00a
Potato Starch 6.3 6 0.09d 6.9 6 0.19de 7.8 6 0.33d 5.7 6 0.09f 7.5 6 0.42bc
Stabilized Rice Bran 7.3 6 0.35abc 8.0 6 0.23b 8.0 6 0.39b 8.2 6 0.11b 6.3 6 0.18e
Rice Flour 6.9 6 0.10c 7.5 6 0.17bc 8.5 6 0.02a 6.1 6 0.20e 7.7 6 0.03b
Tapioca Flour 7.1 6 0.12bc 6.9 6 0.20ef 7.2 6 0.24cd 5.2 6 0.17g 6.4 6 0.29de
Waxy Corn Starch 7.5 6 0.05ab 7.5 6 0.49bcd 7.5 6 0.05bc 6.5 6 0.17d 8.0 6 0.20ab

Note. For the same wheat fraction used, sensory attributed of cooked pasta 6 standard deviation within the same treatment (i.e., same column) having
different letter(s) are significantly (p < .05) different according to the LSD. About 100% wheat treatment had overall, firmness, stickiness, flavor, and
color scores of 8.8, 7.6, 6.4, 6.5, and 8.2, respectively.

them to absorb more moisture, swell faster, and to a greater degree
thereby increasing their susceptibility to disruption through shear
force.
Yang and Chang (1999) showed that proteins are tightly bound
starch granules prevented starch from exhibiting its crystalline and
pasting property. Rao (1999) also reported that although proteins and
starch are thermodynamically different polymers; their presence
together can lead to significant starch–protein interactions which affect
texture significantly. The authors further demonstrated that if starch
gelatinization takes place earlier than proteins gel formation, the
formed networks can act independently with the net strength and tex-
ture of products dependent on both networks.
Cooked pasta water uptake and cooking loss are presented in
Table 5. Pasta water uptake of various treatments ranged from
32.2% for tapioca flour to 87.3% for waxy corn starch (i.e., wheat-
5 17%, starch type 5 66%, and egg 5 17%). Variation in starch type
percentage and egg level resulted in inconsistent pasta water uptake
trends. Results were supported by the estimated response surface
model coefficients (Table 4) indicating a significant rule of starch
type, egg level, and wheat percentage in water uptake. Cooked
pasta water uptake was positively influenced by wheat and starch or
flour type used. For instance, potato starch and rice flour influenced
pasta water uptake having coefficients of 106.5 and 45.4, respec-
tively. Similar trends were reported for pasta cooking loss where
wheat and starch types played a key role in affecting cooking loss.
Egg level, conversely, almost exclusively has a negative impact on
pasta cooking loss regardless of starch/flour types used. Results fur-
ther showed that wheat/starch, wheat/egg and starch/egg interac-
tions had no effect on pasta cooking loss (Table 4).
Cooking loss of pasta and noodles is considered an important fac-
tor in evaluating product quality. Several studies have shown the signif-
icant influence of starch structure in the formation and maintaining
10 | SALEH
three-dimensional starch–protein–lipid network pasta structure that is
usually interlinked by starch–protein–lipid network (Derycke et al.,
2005). Kim et al. (1996) reported a strong correlation between amylose
content of potato starch and cooking loss. The authors related the
increase in cooking loss to the swell of potato starch during boiling in
water, hydration of amorphous regions, and subsequent degradation of
formed amylose networks with increased cooking time, resulting in
increasing the amylose content of the cooking water. Noodles made of
navy and pinto bean starches, on the other had had limited cooking
loss due to the lipid and protein content in the navy and pinto beans
(Gujska, Reinhard, & Khan, 1994). The results of this study correspond
to those from Das and Chattoraj (1989) who reported a significant
influence of egg level on the cooking time of noodles. The authors indi-
cated a critical role of added egg on the consumer acceptability of
cooked pasta texture. Walsh and Gills (1971) also stated that high pro-
tein content is related with high cooking loss. The presence of proteins
and lipids are believed to aid in the formation of starch–protein–lipids
networks (i.e., amylose–lipid and amylose–protein networks) providing
mechanical support for the mixture and protect the formed rigid nature
of cooked pasta limiting its cooking loss. This theory is supported by
findings from Savita, Arshwinder, Gurkirat, and Vikas (2013) who
reported an increase in solid loss in cooked water of pasta with the
increase in whole egg and egg albumen level when used with in semo-
lina wheat flour. Fibers, conversely, were reported to negatively impact
the end-use properties of pasta. Fibers was indicated to play a role in
disrupting starch–protein matrix of the dough during pasta preparation,
often swell faster than starch and compete for water during dough
development (Rakhesh, Fellows, & Sissons, 2015).
Sensory attributes (i.e., overall liking, firmness, stickiness, flavor,
and color) of substituted starch/flour types and egg levels are pre-
sented in Table 6. Overall liking scores for the 100% control wheat
samples was 8.8 compared to 7.7 for lupine (i.e., 17% lupine, 66%
wheat, and 17% egg); the greatest overall liking among treatments.
Results indicated acceptable overall liking scores for all treatments
except for treatment of 34% wheat, 33% tapioca, and 33% egg and
that having 50% wheat and 50% of each waxy corn starch and tapioca
treatments having overall scores of 4.4, 5.3, and 5.8, respectively.
Hardness, stickiness, flavor, and color results did not reveal a consistent
trend in affecting treatments sensory scores. Starch pasta products
were reported to have a great transparency scores that usually affects
consumer overall and appearance rating (Kim & Wiesenborn, 1995).
Since most treatments reflected fractions of starch/flour; produced
pasta had an acceptable appearance compared to the control. Cooked
pasta texture was acceptable as indicated by consumer scores. Results
are in line with Galvez and Resurreccion (1992) indications that cooked
starch noodles should be neither too firm nor too soft. Texture scores
of treatments could be a result of starch chemical composition varia-
tion. For instance, high-amylose starches are known to be too firm,
resulting from a rigid and tight structure that inhibits water absorption
(Toyokawa, Rubenthaler, Powers, & Schanus, 1989). Savita et al. (2013)
studied the influence of different protein sources on cooking and sen-
sory quality of pasta. The authors reported that incorporation of milk
ET AL.
proteins increased the time taken by the starch to gelatinize as a result
of the increased water absorption. A 9.9% increase in water absorption
was reported in casein-supplemented pasta. The authors further indi-
cated no significant variation in the acceptability score of pasta with
the addition of casein and whey protein concentrate but significant
improvement with added skim milk powder. Niturkar, Doke, Joglekar,
and Rotte (1992) also reported an improvement of 4% milk protein for-
tified vermicelli including color and texture compared to nonfortified
treatments. The authors further reported an improvement in sensory
score of cooked noodles in terms of better color, texture, and flavor
than a control sample.
4 | CONCLUSION
Fractional replacement of various starch/flour types and egg level sig-
nificantly impacted treatments functionality through influencing pro-
tein–starch interaction. Proteins and lipids also promote a formation of
an insoluble polymeric matrix; providing protection to the starch gran-
ules integrity and thus functionality during processing. Findings of this
study provide valuable information for the potential use of types and
levels of starch and egg level to enhance pasta quality including, water
loss, adhesion, and WHC. Flow curves of batters containing flour
blends of substituted starches/flour types and egg levels showed shear
thinning behavior and significantly impacted treatments physical prop-
erties thus pasta quality.
ET HICAL STATEMENTS
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they do not have any
conflict of interest.
Ethical Review: This study does not involve any human or animal
testing.
Informed Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from all
study participants.
RE FE RE NCE S
AACC International. (2000). Method 76-21. General pasting method for
wheat or rye flour or starch using the rapid Visco Analyser. Approved
methods of analysis (11th ed). St. Paul, MN: AACC International.
AACC International (2000). Method 60-50.01. Pasta and noodle cooking
quality-firmness. Approved methods of analysis (11th ed). St. Paul,
MN: AACC International.
Abdelrahman, R. A. (2014). Influence of chemical properties of wheat-
lupine flour blends on cake quality. American Journal of Food Science
and Technology, 2, 67–75.
Abu-Salem, F. M., & Abou-Arab, E. A. (2011). Physicochemical properties
of Tempeh produced from chickpea seeds. The Journal of American
Science, 7, 107–118.
Ashwini, A., Jyotsns, R., & Indrani, D. (2009). Effect of hydrocolloids and
emulsifiers on the rheological, microstructural and quality characteris-
tics of eggless cake. Food Hydrocolloid, 23, 700–707.
Bashir, K., Aeri, V., & Masoodi, L. (2012). Physiochemical and sensory
characteristics of pasta fortified with chickpea flour and defatted soy
flour. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technol-
ogy, 1(5), 34–39.
SALEH ET AL.
Chiang, S. H., Chen, C. S., & Chang, C. Y. (2006). Effect of wheat flour
protein compositions on the quality of deep-fried gluten balls. Journal
of Food Chemistry, 97, 666–673.
Cornell, J. A. (1986). A comparison between two ten point designs for
studying three component mixture systems. Journal of Quality Tech-
nology, 18, 1–15.
Das, M., & Chattoraj, D. K. (1989). Quality characteristic of noodles
enriched with salt extracted fish protein. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 26, 272–276.
Debbouz, A., & Doetkott, C. (1996). Effect of process variables on spa-
ghetti quality. Cereal Chemistry, 73(6), 672–676.
D’egidio, M. G., Mariani, B. M., Nardi, S., Novaro, P., & Cubadda, R. (1990).
Chemical and technological variables and their relationships: A predictive
equation for pasta cooking quality. Cereal Chemistry, 67(3), 275–281.
Dervas, G., Doxastakis, G., Hadjisavva-Zinoviadi, S., & Triantafillakos, N.
(1999). Lupin flour addition to wheat flour doughs and effect on
rheological properties. Food Chemistry, 66, 67–73.
Derycke, V., Veraverbeke, W. S., Vandeputte, G. E., DE Man, W., Hose-
ney, R. C., & Delcour, J. A. (2005). Impact of proteins on pasting and
cooking properties of nonparboiled and parboiled rice. Cereal Chemis-
try, 82, 468–474.
Dexter, J. E., & Matsuo, R. R. (1978). The effect of gluten protein frac-
tions on pasta dough rheology and spaghetti making quality. Cereal
Chemistry, 55(1), 44–57.
Dzudie, T., Scher, J., & Hardy, J. (2002). Common bean flour as an
extender in beef sausages. Journal of Food Engineering, 52(2), 143–147.
Fitzgerald, M. A., Martin, M., Ward, R. M., Park, W. D., & Shead, H. J.
(2003). Viscosity of rice flour: A rheological and biological study.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 2295–2299.
Galvez, F. C. F., & Resurreccion, A. V. A. (1992). Reliability of the focus
group technique in determining the quality characteristics of mung
bean noodles. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 315.
Grinberg, V. Y., & Tolstoguzov, V. B. (1997). Thermodynamic incompati-
bility of proteins and polysaccharides in solutions. Food Hydrocolloid,
11, 145–158.
Gujska, E., Reinhard, W. D., & Khan, K. (1994). Physicochemical proper-
ties of field pea, pinto and navy bean starches. Journal of Food Sci-
ence, 59, 634.
Hamaker, B. R., Griffin, V. K., & Moldenhauer, K. A. K. (1991). Potential
influence of a starch granule–associated protein on cooked rice stick-
iness. Journal of Food Science, 56, 1327–1329.
Hen, Z. C., Chols, H. A. S., & Voragen, A. G. J. (2006). The use of potato
and sweet potato starches affects white salted noodle quality. Journal
of Food Science, 68(9), 2630–2637.
Kim, Y. S., & Wiesenborn, D. P. (1995). Starch noodle quality as related
to potato genotypes. Journal of Food Science, 61, 248.
Kim, Y. S., Wiesenborn, D. P., Lorenzen, J. H., & Berglund, P. (1996).
Suitability of edible bean and potato starches for starch noodles.
Cereal Chemistry, 73(3), 302–308.
Kohajdova, Z., Karovicova, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). Lupin composition
and possible use in bakery—A Review. Czech Journal of Food Sciences,
29(3), 203–211.
Lopez, E. P. (2014). Influence of the addition of lupine protein isolate on
the protein and technological characteristics of dough and fresh
bread with added Brea Gum. Food Science and Technology (Campinas),
34(1), 195–203.
Marco, C., & Rosell, C. M. (2008). Effect of different protein isolates and
transglutaminase on rice flour properties. Journal of Food Engineering,
84, 132–139.
| 11
Marshal, W. E., Goynes, W. R., & Normand, F. L. (1990). Effect of lipid
and protein removal on starch gelatinization in whole grain milled
rice. Cereal Chemistry, 67, 458–463.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation tech-
niques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Mohri, Z. (1980). Interaction between starch and fatty acid esters in fro-
zen starch noodles. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 44, 1455.
Niturkar, P. D., Doke, V. S., Joglekar, N. V., & Rotte, S. G. (1992). Studies on
the formulation and quality of milk proteins based vermicelli (Seviah) for
kheer like product. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 29, 33–35.
Oh, N. H., Seib, P. A., Ward, A. B., & Deyoe, C. W. (1985). Noodles IV.
Influence of flour protein, extraction rate, particle size, and starch
damage on the quality characteristics of dry noodles. Cereal Chemis-
try, 62, 441.
Ozcan, T. (2007). Characterization of Turkish Quercus L. Taxa based on
fatty acid compositions of the acorns. Journal of the American Oil
Chemist’s Society, 84, 653–662.
Ozcan, T., & Gulriz, B. (2005). Some elemental concentrations in the
Acorns of Turkish Quercus L. (Fagaceae) Taxa. Pakistan Journal of Bot-
any, 37, 361–371.
Payas-Duarte, P., Mock, C. M., & Satterlee, D. L. (1996). Quality of spa-
ghetti containing buckwheat, Amaranth, and lupin flours. Cereal
Chemistry, 73(3), 381–387.
Perez, E., & Perez, L. (2009). Effect of the addition of cassava flour and
beetroot juice on the quality of fettuccine African J. Food Science, 3
(11), 352–360.
Rababah, T., Ereifej, K., Al-Mahasneh, M., Alhamad, M., Alrababah, M., &
Al-U’datt, M. (2008). The physicochemical composition of Acorns for
two mediterranean Quercus species, Jordan J. Agricultural Science, 4,
131–137.
Rakhesh, N., Fellows, C. M., & Sissons, M. (2015). Evaluation of the tech-
nological and sensory properties of durum wheat spaghetti enriched
with different dietary fibres. Journal of the Science of Food and Agri-
culture, 95, 2–11.
Rao, M. A. 1999. Rheology of food gum and starch dispersions. In M. A.
Rao (Ed.), Rheology of fluid and semisolid foods (pp. 208–212). Gai-
thersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
Rho, K. L., Chung, O. K., & Seib, P. A. (1989). Noodles VIII. The effect of
wheat flour lipids, gluten, and several starches and surfactants on the
quality of oriental dry noodles. Cereal Chemistry, 66(4), 276–282.
Sabanis, D., Makri, E., & Doxastakis, G. (2006). Effect of durum flour
enrichment with chickpea flour on the characteristics of dough and
lasagna. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86, 1938–
1944.
Saleh, M., Ajo, R., Al-Ismail, K., & Ondier, G. (2016). Effects of hydrocol-
loids on acorn starch physical properties. Starch/Stärke, 68, doi:
10.1002/star.201500304
Saleh, M. I., & Meullenet, J. F. (2007). Effect of protein disruption using
proteolytic treatment on cooked rice texture properties. Journal of
Texture Studies, 38, 423–437.
Saleh, M. I., & Meullenet, J. F. (2013). Broken rice kernels and the
kinetics of rice hydration and texture during cooking. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 93, 1673–1679.
Savita, S., Arshwinder, K., Gurkirat, K., & Vikas, N. (2013). Influence of
different protein sources on cooking and sensory quality of pasta.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 3(2),
1757–1763.
Scheffe
, H. (1965). The simplex-centroid design for experiments with
mixtures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodologi-
cal), 25, 235.
12 | SALEH
Sliwinski, E. L., Kolster, P., Prins, P. A., & Van Vliet, T. (2004). On the relationship
between gluten protein composition of wheat flours and large-deformation
properties of their doughs. Journal of Cereal Science, 39, 247–264.
Sosulski, A., & Mccurdy, F. (1987). Functionality of flours, protein frac-
tions and isolates from field peas and faba bean. Journal of Food Sci-
ence, 52, 1010–1014.
Sozer, N. (2009). Rheological properties of rice pasta dough supple-
mented with proteins and gums. Food Hydrocolloid, 23, 849–855.
Toyokawa, H., Rubenthaler, G. L., Powers, J. R., & Schanus, E. G. (1989). Japa-
nese noodle qualities. I. Flour components. Cereal Chemistry, 66, 382–386.
Tronc, E. (1999). Lupin flour: A new ingredient for human food. Grains
Legumes, 25, 24–29.
ET AL.
Walsh, D. E., & Gills, K. A. (1971). The influence of protein composition
on spaghetti quality. Cereal Chemistry, 48, 544–554.
Xue, J., & Ngadi, M. (2006). Rheological properties of batter systems for-
mulated using different flour combinations. Journal of Food Engineer-
ing, 77, 334–341.
Yang, C. H., & Chang, W. H. (1999). Effects of protein and lipid binding
to starch on the physicochemical and pasting properties of rice flour.
Food Science and Agricultural Chemistry, 1, 277–285.
Zhao, Y. H., Manthey, F. A., Chang, S. K. C., Hou, H. J., & Yuan, S. H.
(2005). Quality characteristics of spaghetti as affected by green and
yellow pea, lentil, and chickpea flours. Journal of Food Science, 70(6),
S371–S376.